BIPLAB MAZUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Sub -Inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and he was deputed for Initial training at JR/RPF Academy at Lucknow. After such initial training he went through some practical training of SIPF (Executive). He was then posted as Sub -Inspector. RPF at CIB/HQ and attached to Computer Cell with effect from 1.12.99 and he was to remain on probation for a period of 2 years. On 19.8.2000, the Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Fancy Bazar Branch, Guwahati lodged an FIR with the Officer -in -Charge of Panbazar Police Station alleging that the Kohima Branch had issued a Bank Draft dated 10.8.2000 for Rs 100.00 in favor of the petitioner but the Bank Draft was fraudulently altered by using some chemical to Rs 1,00,000/ - and presented for payment at Fancy Bazar Branch by the petitioner along with some other documents. Pursuant to the said FIR, Panbazar Police Station Case No. 253/2000 under Sections 468/420/34, IPC, has been registered on 21.8.2000. The petitioner was arrested and was released on bail by this Court on 12.9.2000 in Bail Application No 155/2000. By an order dated 29.8.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railways, Maligaon, the petitioner was placed under suspension for involvement in the aforesaid PS Case. The said order of suspension was revoked with effect from 22.11.2000. But the petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 24.11.2000 of the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railways, Maligaon. in the said order of termination it has been stated that die Chief Security Commissioner was of the opinion that the petitioner who was under probation was not fit for permanent appointment. Aggrieved by the said order of termination from service, the petitioner has tiled this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.

(2.) MR . N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted mat me impugned order of termination was arbitrary and punitive and has been passed on the allegations made in the FIR alleged by the Senior Branch Manager. Viajaya Bank. He submitted that the petitioner though a probationer could not have been terminated from service without following the principles of natural justice but admittedly the principles of natural justice have not been followed before the impugned order of termination was passed. In support of his submission, he relied on me decision of die Supreme Court in (lie case of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, (2000) 3 SCC 239. He further submitted that Rule 162 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 (for short the 'Rules') provides for the procedure to be followed in case of conviction by a criminal Court but the said procedure has not been followed in the present case. He submitted that the Inspector, RPF, CIB/NFR under whom the petitioner was working on probation has submitted his report to the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, NF Railways, in which he has, inter alia, stated that the petitioner has worked sincerely and in disciplined manner during his tenure in Computer Cell and he did not find anything adverse in his working or in his behavior during office hours. According to him, in view of the said report of the immediate superior of the petitioner with regard to his performance, the impugned order of termination on the ground that the petitioner was unfit for permanent appointment could not have been passed.

(3.) THE petitioner was a member of RPF and the Railways Protection Force Act, 1987 (for short the 'Act') and the Rules made thereunder are applicable to him. Section 9 of the Act provides for dismissal and removal of the members of the Force. The relevant portion of the said Section 9 is quoted hereinbelow :